11600 Education Street, Auburn, CA 95603 (opens Google Maps) · Placer County · (530) 889-0707· 107 certified beds · avg 90 residents/day · certified since Oct 8, 1999 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE (27 facilities, chain avg rating 4.1★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · how star ratings work →
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Showing the latest 3 of 18 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint F-0600
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint F-0684
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. F-0658
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 4, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Mar 3, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Aug 14, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Aug 14, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Aug 14, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Aug 14, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Aug 14, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Nov 25, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint · F-0641 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · F-0919 |
| Nov 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| Nov 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Oct 13, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Oct 13, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Oct 13, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Oct 13, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (4 → 5).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 4 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 5 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 5 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 2 | 0 | D |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $4,194.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 6, 2023 | Fine | $4,194 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 5.25 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 11% in California; top 10% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.03 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 10% in California; top 14% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.65 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 11% in California; top 10% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.51 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 30% in California; top 32% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 34.8 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 45% in California; top 24% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 47.1 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 31% in California; bottom 40% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 4.03, RN 0.79, weekend 3.57.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.03 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Siena Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bmo Bank National Association | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/10/2023 |
| Mastrocola, Lois | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/20/2023 |
| Mastrocola, Lois | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/21/2017 |
| Olds, Thomas | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/21/2017 |
All 4 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Generations Healthcare — 27 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 26 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Auburn Oaks Care Center | 0.1 mi | Auburn, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Westview Healthcare Center | 0.8 mi | Auburn, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Auburn Ravine Healthcare Center | 3.1 mi | Auburn, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Rock Creek Care Center | 4.0 mi | Auburn, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Lincoln Meadows Care Center | 11.4 mi | Lincoln, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Oak Ridge Healthcare Center | 16.3 mi | Roseville, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Roseville Point Health & Wellness Center | 16.6 mi | Roseville, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Roseville Care Center | 17.1 mi | Roseville, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Pine Creek Care Center | 17.1 mi | Roseville, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Folsom Care Center | 18.5 mi | Folsom, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555744.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details